asked the Secretary of State for Employment what European Commission directives on health and safety the Government expected to implement in the current year; and whether he will make a statement of the benefits of United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community.

This year the Government expect to implement some 11 directives in the health and safety sector. Britain gains considerably by common health and safety standards through the Community. We avoid unfair competition and are given easier access to markets which could otherwise be denied us.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the impact that the EEC is having on this sector. Will he ensure that a reasonable amount of time is given to employers to implement these procedures before they come into force?

We must do everything possible to enable employers to come to terms with the changes that we make. The changes are to their advantage, because they will be able to sell goods in the rest of Europe and keep jobs.

What is the present position in the European negotiations vis-a-vis the regulations to reduce noise levels?

Discussions are continuing, and there have been reports from specialist committees which will have to be taken into account. I hope that we shall come to a more rapid conclusion than at one point seemed likely.

In a trade area, such as the EEC, is it not essential to have effective enforcement of common health and safety standards, otherwise there will be gross distortions of trade?

Not only that, but other countries are now following our rules in the EEC, which they would not if Britain were not a member of the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will increase the funding of the Health and Safety Commission.

The provision in estimates and cash limits for the Health and Safety Commission for 1984–85 is £2,695,000 above the cash limit for 1983–84.

Is the Minister aware that that is inadequate? Is he further aware that in 1974, when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act was passed, a promise was made to increase the inspectorate by 50 per cent. to cover the extra work created by the Act—a promise that was repeated in 1975 by the Minister's predecessor in a Tory Government? Why does he now talk about these cash limits when he knows that they are inadequate to carry out the job that the inspectorate is supposed to do?

The resources for the Health and Safety Commission now are much more than they were under any Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that our representation on European committees on health and safety is thought to be rather limited at the moment, and that our manufacturers of health and safety equipment are losing out for that reason?

If my hon. and learned Friend has any specific evidence of that, I shall be delighted to look into it. The resources provided for the Health and Safety Commission have enabled it to bring in a new system of monitoring where hazards lie. That means that we make much better use of the inspectorate that we now have. I understand that a number of inspectors are being recruited.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present percentage rate of unemployment; and what are the numbers involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of people unemployed; and how many of these are aged from 50 to 60 years.

On 5 April the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3.108,000, at a rate of 13 per cent. The latest figure for those unemployed who are aged between 50 and 59 is 478,000.

Does the Secretary of State understand that in places such as Bradford, where 15 out of every 100 people are unemployed, there is precious little evidence of a sustained economic recovery and dismay that traditionally low pay has not resulted in job security and that relatively low inflation has not resulted in new jobs? Does he further understand that the smug complacency of Ministers and the Prime Minister about unemployment is stoking up anger and a sullen resentment, which the Government ignore at their peril?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that I take seriously, as any responsible Minister and hon. Member obviously does, the grave level of unemployment facing us and so many other countries in the Western world. The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence of any change, so let us look quickly at the figures. I note that there is a 10 per cent. increase in the number of people placed in work by jobcentres compared with the equivalent period last year. Obviously we need to go much further than that. The hon. Gentleman said that there was not much evidence of new jobs. I welcome the figures that I was able to announce of 200,000 more jobs in the last three quarters of last year.

We are all understandably depressed and anxious about the problems of the young unemployed, but is the Minister aware that it is important not to neglect or forget the older, middle-aged groups, often with heavy financial and family responsibilities? Is he aware of the heavy human impact of increasingly beginning to realise, as most of them are, that they will never work again? Time is not on their side. If he is aware of the wastage and loss of skills and experience involved in all this, may I ask what he proposes to do about it?

I would not wish to distinguish the relative position of misery faced by school leavers, young people, the middle aged or the elderly, because for everyone the scourge of unemployment poses very real difficulties. With inflation much lower, real signs of improvement in industrial performance and an increase in jobs in the country, we see the best prospect now for many years of starting to tackle those serious problems of unemployment which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would share.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the extraordinary speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in which he alleged that my right hon. Friend had faked the unemployment figures, apparently in connivance with his officials?

I saw those comments. I understand that we are about to have some elections this week. That, I think, is the only possible explanation that one can give. It was a most disgraceful attack on professional statisticians in my Department who are responsible for producing the figures and who have given the most clear evidence—[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members, instead of shouting, if they want know the truth, should look at the Employment Gazette and see the proper basis on which those figures are produced. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should justify that disgraceful allegation against professional people, or shut up.

I have just had a call that I wish I had not had, because, sadly, I was told that another suicide had taken place in my constituency — not the first on Teesside—as a result of unemployment. Is the Secretary of State aware that, behind the figures that we discuss endlessly in the House, there are many human tragedies of this nature, some not as extreme as this, but sad? Will he and his colleagues give much higher priority to the question of unemployment, and give to those who are suffering from this depressing and sad situation more hope than they have at present?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept and recognise from the answers that I have given that I fully accept the appalling difficulties and tragedy that many people face, particularly in the areas of highest unemployment. We know that there are pockets where that level is intolerable. There is no point in seeking to allocate blame. I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman represents a steel constituency. I wonder what responsibility is accepted by Opposition Members who fought against the one intelligent attempt to restructure the steel industry in 1972 and 1973, and how the story might have been very different if that had been acted on. None the less, the situation is serious. We believe that the strengthening of the economy gives us our best prospect of offering hope to people such as those whom the hon. Gentleman represents. We recognise the serious and difficult problems that they face.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in terms of the number of people employed, this country is doing relatively well compared with other industrial countries? Will he consider issuing figures for the total in work, in parallel with the other monthly figures?

It is not possible to publish them at the same time, but the published figure of 200,000 more people in work in the last three quarters of last year is our best estimate. This country provides significantly more employment for its people than the vast majority of other countries, partly because many more women choose to work. We believe that that is the basis on which we must seek to expand the economy, and we are encouraged by the present progress in the creation of new jobs.

Is the Minister aware that, according to the 1981 census, unemployment among males between the ages of 20 and 45 on two large overspill estates in my constituency—Langley and Darnhill—was 43 and 33 per cent., respectively? Three years have now passed and the figures have worsened. What help does the Minister intend to give those unfortunate men?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier answer in which I referred specifically to serious pockets of unemployment of the type that he mentioned that may exist within a region or a travel-to-work area with considerably lower average figures. There is no quick quack solution to the problem. The solution must come from a real improvement in our economic performance. I take encouragement from the improvement in our competitive position and the very significant improvement in our economy. The Government have introduced a number of measures to assist the situation. The enterprise allowance scheme has proved a great success. There is also the community programme and the job release scheme. All those measures are further attempts to help in a serious situation.

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that British Steel has shed 50 per cent. of its labour force compared with four years ago, but that the entire financial saving has been swallowed up by the rate increases imposed by Cleveland council, which this year was more than 25 per cent.?

I have made one or two speeches on the need for economy and restraint in rate demands. Anyone whose activities have any bearing at all on the costs and competitive position of industry has a responsibility in this matter. I hope that local authorities will realise that it is vital not to add unnecessary burdens to industries which are now starting to succeed, but which must remain competitive in costs if they are to win through.

Will the Secretary of State explain why, whenever there is a small reduction in the number of unemployed, the Government claim credit for the success of their policies, but whenever there is a massive increase they blame it on forces outwith their control?

I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make that charge about my statements. The latest unemployment figures show a very small fall in the seasonally adjusted totals and a small reduction in the headline totals, but it is too early to tell whether the improvement in the economy will move fast enough to cope with the additional 160,000 people seeking work this year and the undoubted improvements in productivity also being achieved. That is the great challenge that we face.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the operation of sweatshops in the city of Leicester.

The first representations that I received on the subject were from my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). Since then the hon. and learned Member has made representations.

Is the Minister aware that his reply to my Adjournment debate was regarded in Leicester as inadequate and useless? Unemployment in some parts of my constituency is 60 per cent. and that has led to people accepting work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions of slave labour for pay which is a disgrace? What solution, if any, can the Government offer other than vituperation in reply.

Apart from that accusation, I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman was dissatisfied with the coverage that he received in the Leicester Mercury. That was not what the press said about these matters. I very much hope to accept my hon. Friends' invitation to visit Leicester to look for myself at the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friends. I am very sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not follow his own message — that this was not a matter for party political vituperation.

Will my hon. Friend note that, so far as I was concerned, his statement on Wednesday was well received in Leicester. Will he confirm that all the allegations outlined in the letter to the Leicester Mercury, as well as in representaions by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), will be investigated?

I shall see that they are investigated most carefully, and I hope that the Leicester Mercury will be able to provide me with the evidence necessary for them to be investigated. I repeat that this issue is far too important to be brought into party political argument.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to discuss methods of reducing unemployment with European Economic Community Employment Ministers.

We shall be discussing employment matters of mutual concern at the Standing Employment Committee on 10 May and the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 7 June.

What is the Government's reaction to the proposals of the European Trade Union Confederation for co-ordinated increases of 1 per cent. of GNP in non-wage public expenditure by the EEC and other Western industrial countries, which is calculated to create 5 million new jobs? If so, will the Minister now make a statement?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, all our consultations with our European colleagues are geared to an improvement in employment. For employment in the United Kingdom to be improved, as the hon. Gentleman will understand perfectly well, cost-competitiveness is extremely important.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to unemployment across the European Community lies not in further ill-conceived methods on yet another level of public expenditure but in trying to do away with the non-tariff barriers to trade that still exist in the Community, thereby allowing a freer flow of goods and competition, which will result in increased employment?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know from his personal experience in Europe, many of our European colleagues will be interested to hear about the containment of public expenditure in the United Kingdom and its effect on employment.

Is the Minister aware that, tragically, 1,000 youngsters in my constituency have not had a job since leaving school, yet when the Foreign Secretary has reported on recent Council meetings he has never mentioned unemployment? Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have an urgent meeting with the Foreign Secretary and tell him that unemployment should be discussed at any future Council meetings?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and myself, when in Europe, are concerned about employment prospects. I am just as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about the 1,000 youngsters in his constituency, but he will be aware that the youth training scheme—a major programme—is to a great extent supported by the European social fund.

Does my hon. Friend expect the ESPRIT programme to have a beneficial effect on employment over the next few years—if so, what will the figures be—or is the programme too small to have that effect?

On balance, we expect it to have a beneficial effect.

Does the Minister appreciate that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) was that the European Trade Union Confederation has put forward a specific proposal for an increase of 1 per cent. in non-wage public expenditure by each EEC country as a way of stimulating growth within the EEC? Is that not the sort of sensible proposal that the Government ought to support instead of trying to back down at the Dispatch Box?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that that is precisely what his Socialist counterparts in France did, and the results have not been good for the French economy or employment prospects. I therefore hope that he will understand my reservations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in discussing these matters with his European colleagues his task is not made easier when the Scottish miners are not delivering sufficient coal to keep the Ravenscraig steelworks going?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that those who work at the Ravenscraig plant, as well as those who work at other steelworks throughout the country, will carefully bear in mind what he has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated increase in the work force between the present time and 1989.

The civilian labour force, which includes people seeking work as well as those in work, is projected to increase by 458,000 in Great Britain between mid-1984 and mid-1989.

As there was an increase of 200,000 people in work between March and December last year—the biggest increase during the past five years—does my hon. Friend agree that taking the unemployment figures in isolation does not do justice to the efficacy of the Government's strategy in tackling unemployment, especially as Britain's work force, for demographic reasons, is rising rapidly?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need not be apprehensive about the increase in the work force. There is no doubt that rising real incomes and changing consumer tastes will generate jobs in new sectors that could not have been predicted two or three years ago. It is from those sectors that, in the fullness of time, the impact on unemployment figures will be seen.

Is the Minister aware that over the years every Government have looked at the work force and the way in which it grows and provided for that? Are not this Government sitting on their backside? They could not care less about the unemployment of those coming on stream for work. When will the Minister and the Department of Employment do something about jobs for youngsters and others in this nation?

I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman, who attends every employment Question Time, should make such entirely unfounded accusations. He knows perfectly well that the youth training scheme is available for every youngster leaving school who wishes to take advantage of it. A wide variety of special employment measures take —2 billion of taxpayers' money each year.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the west midlands low pay unit, so-called sweatshops have now become major new employers of labour in the west midlands? Does he agree that if the terms and conditions of employment are forced to be more advantageous to the workers, there will be a reduction in opportunities for employment?

Yes. The fixing of wages is a matter for employers and their work forces. Any attempt to interfere with that will put up costs and reduce employment prospects.

The estimated increase in the work force will not help to reduce the high unemployment levels. How does the Minister justify spending millions of pounds to keep people in work in the midlands coalfields when he is not prepared to spend the same amount on trying to get people back to work?

The hon. Gentleman knows that spending money to get people back to work has been attempted with varying degrees of failure by all the OECD countries during the past 20 years. The most recent example is that of the French, who tried it on an enormous scale but had to call off their experiment after 12 months.

What is the projected increase in unemployment between now and 1989, especially in manufacturing industry, if there is no change in the Government's policies?

The hon. Gentleman knows that there are never any projections for such figures. As I said earlier, there is every reason to believe that the generating of jobs in new high technology sectors and sectors brought about by changes in consumer tastes and the rise in real incomes will have the greatest impact on reducing unemployment.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the role of the Manpower Services Commission's area manpower boards; and if he will make a statement.

The role of the Manpower Services Commission's area manpower boards is to advise the commission on the planning and delivery of its programmes at local level. Responsibility for decisions on these programmes rests with the commission and its staff.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation. Is it true that recently the chairman of the commission overruled the Liverpool area manpower board? If so, why?

As for the proposals that were put forward relating to the mode B1 provision of the youth training scheme, the Liverpool area manpower board was unable to reconcile itself with that proposition and, as a result, the chairman of the commission, particularly wearing his mantle as the accounting officer, saw fit to overrule, in my view, rightly.

Have not the area boards been placed in an utterly invidious role in being required to select where the cuts should take place in community programmes, so having to distinguish between schemes in areas such as Cumbria? May we have an assurance that the Secretary of State is exerting every pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure an increase in community places in the next financial year?

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in the first year of the community programme Cumbria had more than the average share. I believe that that was right, and the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter. It is right that the area manpower boards, with their local knowledge, should advise the commission on where they believe programmes should be instituted or, indeed, curtailed.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been considerable concern at the way in which some area manpower boards have been exercising their judgment in relation to individual mode B1 schemes under the youth training scheme? What general criteria does he expect them to employ in making judgments on schemes?

The important point for the manpower boards when judging what schemes are appropriate is to take into account the local needs of the youngsters concerned, having consulted the careers service. By and large—and I use that phrase advisedly—that is what they have been doing, and I am grateful for the work that they have done.

Is the Minister aware that the London, south and west area manpower board of the MSC recently came out in Wandsworth in complete opposition to the proposed cuts in the mode B1 places on the youth training scheme? Is he further aware that that view of the area board has been ignored by himself and by the chairman of the MSC, and that there is united opposition in Wandsworth, covering both the Conservative and Labour parties, against the ridiculous cuts that he is proposing? Why is he singling out Wandsworth and the disadvantaged young people there for these cuts?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware —because he and some of his colleagues came to see me about the situation in Wandsworth—that the matter has been looked at very carefully indeed. He will also be aware that when the board came to its decision about London, south and west, it did not particularly single out Wandsworth; it was concerned with mode B1 provision in that part of London, and that is why the decision to overrule was taken.

Is there any truth in the statement that the area manpower board on Tayside is unhappy with the role that it is being asked to undertake? If so, what does my hon. Friend propose to do about it?

I assure my hon. Friend that the role of all the area manpower boards is being looked at carefully by us and them in the light of the future provision of training, whether at the youth or adult end. That is right, and how it should be.

Were the area manpower boards consulted before the MSC announced its proposals to cut back drastically on jobcentres and on the personnel and resources allocated to them? If an area manpower board concluded that those proposals were bad for the employment service in its area, what notice would anybody take of it?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that in the management proposals relating to the jobcentre network there is no cutback. Indeed, there is provision for an increase of between 100 and 200 outlets. That is the precise situation. The MSC looked at the matter carefully last week and I hear that the Secretary of State will be getting a considered view from the commission, which I gather is a united view, including the TUC commissioners.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to discuss methods of improving industrial democracy with his European Community colleagues.

Some aspects will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of Ministers at the Council of Social Affairs on 7 June.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that there should be full discussion with the workers to ensure that we get the technological change in industry that is essential if we are to compete in the world? Does he further agree that our partners in the EEC have, in the main, accepted the Vredeling directives, and is it not time that the British Government also accepted those proposals? Does he think that 1 May would be an appropriate day for the Government to announce that they intend to move towards genuine industrial democracy?

I had thought that I was going to be able to agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I believe profoundly in the importance of involvement and communication between management and workers. It is a clear sign of a successful company when that involvement and communication operates effectively. However, I do not believe in imposing directives that put a straitjacket on the ways in which involvement and communication can be undertaken, Such directives would make inoperative some of the most successful operations in the United Kingdom in which consultation and communication are especially effective.

Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the CBI and other employers' organisations any shared participation schemes that operate within the EC, in the hope that they will be encouraged to advance industrial democracy in Britain by that means?

I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. He has introduced a useful ingredient. The steps taken by right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget should be extremely helpful in that respect

How do the Tory Government, who constantly pontificate about the alleged lack of democracy in trade unions, avoid the charge of hypocrisy if they reject even the modest proposals of the Vredeling directive on democracy in the workplace? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if he vetoes the Vredeling directive he will do so for the rest of Europe apart from Britain?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already legislated in one respect of the Vredeling directive in requiring every company—this requirement is not restricted to companies over a certain size—to publish in its report and accounts its activity and involvement in communication. That requirement was placed in the 1982 Act. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be monitoring extremely carefully all company reports and accounts to ascertain how the involvement is being pursued. I was involved in communications in industry in the past and I believe that the most effective approach is the voluntary one. The hon. Gentleman can wrap himself up in legislation and directives if he wishes, but I want to see positive results within industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the percentage of people over the age of 50 years who were unemployed on 1 May 1983 and have since then obtained a job.

After making allowance for the effect of the 1983 Budget provisions, it is broadly estimated that in January about one third of claimants who were unemployed and aged 50 and over in April 1983 had ceased to claim benefit. The reasons why people cease to claim are not recorded.

Surely the Minister's answer demonstrates the true state of affairs that lies behind the empty propaganda that we have heard over the past 12 months from the Government Benches about an economic recovery. Two thirds of those aged 50 and over who were unemployed a year ago are still unemployed. What does the Minister think about someone over 50 years of age who is employed by a privately owned, opencast mine in Durham and is paid £25 a week for 12-hour shifts seven days a week? Does he agree that that form of vicious exploitation is increasingly the only opportunity for work that is open to those in the category that we are discussing? Is the Minister not ashamed that he has created this pool of cheap labour?

The figure that the hon. Gentleman has quoted for someone working seven days a week at an opencast mine in Durham seems to be dubious in the extreme, although I am not questioning his good faith in putting it to the House. Plainly, it is a matter for the employee and his employer and has nothing to do with the Government. The position of those in the labour market aged 50 and over is certainly a matter for disquiet. The best solution is for employers to re-examine, against a background of rising economic activity, their recruitment practices so as not inadvertently to exclude the special skills and experience of these applicants.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the best ways of helping this age group to return to some type of employment is to assist with self-employment? In my constituency the local enterprise agency is having considerable difficulty in meeting the demand for enterprise allowances to assist those people. Will my hon. Friend provide encouragement by increasing the supply of enterprise allowance money?

My hon. Friend is right. Applicants in that age group are among the most enterprising and successful at taking advantage of the scheme. A question on the enterprise allowance is on the Order Paper. I have good news to report to the House at this stage, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with what I shall say.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the views of the chairman of the MSC that people made redundant at 50 or over have virtually no chance of employment? In those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman not believe that the very least that a civilised society should do is to pay a long-term supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed over 50? That measure would cost just £90 million. Will the Government do that?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the prospects of that category of claimant. As I told the House in my initial answer, the number of claimants has been reduced by one third in a year. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the cost of extending long-term supplementary benefit to those people would be about £90 million. The application of resources is always a difficult matter to decide, and it must be evaluated.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982; and if he will make a statement.

The 1980 and 1982 Acts have redressed the imbalance of bargaining power which was created by the legislation of 1974 and 1976. They have restored the protection of the law to victims of the closed shop and provided a remedy for those whose businesses and jobs are threatened by indiscriminate and irresponsible industrial action.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the step-by-step approach adopted by the Government since 1979 has proved wise in practice? Will my right hon. Friend resist any temptation to depart from that cautious approach to the reform of industrial relations law?

That approach is right, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. The third step, with what I confidently expect will be the 1984 Act, will be in place by the end of the year. The impact of the closed shop legislation is still to be felt. By 1 November 1984 a ballot must be held if a closed shop is legally to continue.

Why did the Government advise Mr. MacGregor that it would not be in the interests of the coal industry for him to take the National Union of Mineworkers to court under the provisions of the 1980 and 1982 Acts?

The Government told Mr. MacGregor no such thing. Mr. MacGregor and the board of the NCB are responsible for their decisions. They have made their decisions, and the Government have every confidence in them.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many part-time workers earn less than £2·50 per hour at 1983–84 prices; what proportion of these are women workers; and what this figure represents as a proportion of women in part-time employment.

In April 1983, in broad terms, about 3·5 million part-time workers were earning less than £2·50 per hour. Around seven eighths of these were women, who represented about three quarters of all part-time women workers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 90 per cent. of part-time workers in Europe are women, 40 per cent. of whom are British workers? In the light of that fact and the vulnerability of part-time workers, will the hon. Gentleman accept the draft EEC directive, which would provide the same protection and conditions to part-time workers as are given to full-time workers, as is recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation?

I doubt the wisdom of doing what the hon. Gentleman recommends. Wage rates are fixed by the market. If wages are artificially raised by Government or by union interference, inevitably costs will increase and jobs will be lost.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who work part time are employed in the tie industry and that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who has just asked a question, is making no contribution to their work?

:The Opposition are disappointed at the Government's continuing refusal to ratify the draft EEC directive on part-time employment. Is the Minister aware that part-timers—mostly women—are most often to be found on wage rates that are close to and often below wages councils minima, and that means that part-timers—again mainly women—are the vulnerable minority, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested, and will suffer further deterioration in their living standards after the statutory protection of wages councils is withdrawn?

The hon. Lady should recollect that since 1970 women's average earnings have risen from 63 to 74 per cent. of men's. Where their wages are covered by wages councils women have a perfectly good redress under existing arrangements. The advisability of abolishing wages councils is not immediately relevant. That matter will come up for decision in a year's time.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 may.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Will the Prime Minister take time to reflect that five years ago she became Prime Minister and I became the Member of Parliament for Dundee, West? In that time she has managed to double unemployment. In Dundee, 21,000 people receive supplementary benefit; there are 5,000 people waiting for hospital beds; 2,500 youngsters are looking for nursery school places; and 2,000 young people who left school at 16 are now 18 and are no longer working. What message can she send to the people of Dundee, particularly the women, who have had to bear the brunt of the Government's policies for the past five years?

With regard to some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps he forgets that inflation is at its lowest figure for a very long time; waiting lists in hospitals have fallen after rising by 250,000 under Labour; more children are in nursery schools than at the end of the last Labour Government; more 18-year-olds are going into higher education; expenditure per pupil has risen and pupil-teacher ratios have fallen; and the social security retirement pension has gone up in real terms, and so on. Unemployment has risen everywhere, and since May 1979 it has risen by 196 per cent. in the Netherlands and 154 per cent.in West Germany—about the same percentage in West Germany as here.

Has my right hon. Friend had brought to her attention the booklet recently issued by Mr. Marlin called "Privatisation of Local Government Activities" based on the experience in Japan, a country with twice our population? It shows that Japan has fewer civil servants and local government officials, resulting in lower taxes and greater productivity? Will she bring it to the attention of all in local government?

Yes. We are constantly trying to bring these matters to the attention of local authorities. The Government are very much aware of them. My hon. Friend will be aware that we now have the smallest Civil Service in the post-war period.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that widespread disappointment was felt in the House and elsewhere yesterday when she let it be known that she was not in favour of an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the murder of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher and the events at the so-called Libyan People's Bureau since? Will she reconsider that apparent decision and facilitate an inquiry which neither exposes nor compromises the security services but is addressed specifically to the response of Her Majesty's Government to the information which they appear to have received about the activities of the Libyan People's Bureau since it was established in 1979?

No, Sir. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have set up an internal inquiry under the Cabinet Office. Any external inquiry into intelligence matters would risk compromising sources and damaging the effectiveness of the intelligence service. Indeed, it would damage the very cause that most of us seek to protect.

It is difficult to foresee that outcome if the Prime Minister were to commission an inquiry into, as I asked, the Government's responses to the information received during the existence of the Libyan People's Bureau. Will she accept that an inquiry does not have to publish either the sources or the detail of the information? It is surely necessary for the House and the country to discover what was the level of validity of that information and how the Government reacted to it in their instructions and in the right hon. Lady's instructions to the police and the security services, and in terms of this country's relations with the Republic of Libya.

No, Sir. I have already given instructions for the circumstances leading to the events of 17 April in St. James's square, including the intelligence and other information available, to be thoroughly reviewed. If there are lessons to be learnt in regard to the arrangements for handling, disseminating and assessing intelligence, the necessary changes will be made. It would be inappropriate, on security grounds, to make a public announcement of any such changes. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Cover-up."]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister today consider along with her other duties the effects of the coalmining strike? Will she inform the House what stocks are held at power stations, how long she expects them to last, and at what stage she would expect to involve Her Majesty's forces to facilitate the movement of coal?

The stocks at power stations are good and sufficient to last for many months. I hope that the strike will be resolved satisfactorily.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the decision announced this morning of Tatung to create 1,000 new jobs in Telford as confidence being shown internationally in the economic policies that her Government are following?

I thank my hon. Friend. I think that many other countries have great confidence in the policy that the Government are following and that they are showing it by bringing investment to this country.

Is the Prime Minister aware that members of the Franks committee, let alone members of other Privy Council inquiries investigating intelligence matters, will find it hard to understand how she can say that those inquiries would risk compromising sources and damaging the operational effectiveness and value of the services? If she continues to hold this rather derisory view of external inquiries, how does she justify not at least asking the Security Commission, which was established for this very purpose, to investigate these allegations which she herself by implication accepts as having some validity?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that no one has been more forthcoming on intelligence matters generally than I have, I think perhaps too forthcoming, because the more they are discussed the more I am afraid our sources are compromised, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware. He is aware of an occasion when that may well have happened. With regard to his specific question about the Security Commission, the commission's terms of reference are to investigate breaches of security in the public service, normally following a conviction under the Official Secrets Act 1911. It would not be appropriate to ask it to undertake an inquiry of the sort now proposed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the eyes of the nation—[Interruption]—what are hon. Gentlemen laughing at—were on the Libyan embassy during the siege? Is she further aware that the eyes of the nation are on her at this moment, bearing in mind what the media are saying and what she has just said about a review of the siege? Is this another cover-up by the Conservative Government because of the failure once again of the Foreign Office?

I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said about a specific matter. Under very difficult circumstances, after the terrible events of that day when Constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot, my right hon. and learned Friend and the whole Government faced the problem of our people in the embassy in Tripoli. Obviously we had to consider their safety. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the matter was resolved by all of them coming home safely and, of course, the breaking off of diplomatic relations with Libya—an almost unprecedented step in the international community — followed by the deportation of all who were not diplomats and the expulsion of all who were.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ugly and violent scenes in Nottinghamshire this morning were sad and tragic for a great industry and that they were a direct result of incitement by Opposition Members?

Yes, I believe that to be so. I believe that when people look at the offers available to the coal industry on merit they will come to the inescapable conclusion that the pay offer is infinitely better than anything offered under the previous Government. Pay is about 25 per cent. above average industrial earnings. Investment is over 56 per cent. above that undertaken by the Labour Government and investment in the future offers a bright prospect for those who choose to make their careers in the coal industry.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 May.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the petition presented to No. 10 Downing street this afternoon by young people from the northern region about the miserly £25 being paid to those on the youth training scheme? Is she aware that that sum has not increased since 1982? Will the Prime Minister now accept the recommendation by the TUC and increase the allowance to £35? Alternatively, will she accept the recommendation by the Employment Select Committee that the allowance should run at least in line with inflation?

No, Sir. I have no proposals to increase the training allowance available under the youth training scheme. I believe that the service is of inestimable value to young people. It is able to help more young people with the allowance as it is now than it would be if it were increased.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we live in strange times when Arthur Scargill, who does not believe in hereditary peerages or in hereditary wealth, believes in hereditary jobs bought at the expense of those of hundreds of thousands of other union members? Is that not strange, since miners' redundancy pay is 15 times that which workers in other industries receive, and miners' wage increases are above those received by many other workers? Is it not time for Mr. Scargill at least to be sincere and support people, such as those at Ravenscraig, who need coal and jobs so that they, too, may survive?

If we had a lower-cost coal industry, as a result of the investment that we have put into it, many industries would be able to flourish because they are high users of energy. Whenever the price of coal is higher than it need be the price of energy is increased and people in high energy using industries are put out of jobs.

The House will have greeted with great disappointment the Prime Minister's response to a request for an inquiry. If a failure by the security forces led to the death of a policewoman and caused concern to the people, if not to Government Members, will the Prime Minister promise that she will publish a report on her inquiry into the case and come before the House to tell us exactly what happened? Will she then tell us who was responsible for any of the circumstances which might have led to the unfortunate events and, in particular, to the death of the woman police constable?

No, Sir. I answered that question, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could not hear it because of the noise. I said that I had already given instructions for the circumstances leading up to the event of 17 April in St. James's square, including intelligence and other information available, to be thoroughly reviewed. I went on to say:

"If there are lessons to be learnt with regard to the arrangements for handling, disseminating and assessing intelligence, the necessary changes will be made."